Life Preservation in Genesis and Exodus: An Exegetical Study of the Tebāh by Joshua Joel Spoelstra Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Theology at Stellenbosch University Supervisor: Prof. Louis C. Jonker December 2013 i Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za DECLARATION By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Date: 31 August 2013 Copyright © 2013 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved ii Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za ABSTRACT hbt, that rare word appropriated for the vessels of Noah and Moses and nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, seems to indicate an inter-textual relationship and invites investigation; in fact, hbt has undergone very little treatment in past scholarship. There are several oddities to this seemingly straightforward problem, though. The two vessels are drastically different from one another, both aesthetically and contextually; the word is in fact a loan word, not native to the Hebrew language; the term in the LXX is disharmonious in each respective story: kibwto/j for Noah and qi=bij for Moses. What had the author(s)/redactor(s) in mind when making the hbt lexical link; and why have the Septuagint translators severed the terminological nexus? After thorough synchronic and diachronic exegesis of the Flood (Gen 6-9*) and Foundling (Ex 2*) narratives, it is argued that the donor language from whence the Hebrews loaned hbt is the Egyptian ḏbȝ.t meaning ―coffer, coffin; Götterschrein.‖ Whereas the lexeme in question is Egyptian in origin, the form and content of the Flood and the Foundling narratives are germane to Akkadian–Babylonian literature. This hybrid is fitting and provocative in light of the Levantine milieu of which the Hebrew people were a part. The Priestly writer, actually, in all likelihood originally referred to Noah‘s vessel as an Nwr), like that of the ark of the covenant; Later the non-Priestly compositor/redactor switched that term out for hbt and used the same in Ex 2*, thus creating the parallel. (Incidentally, the LXX translators are probably trying to counteract that later redaction and bring Noah‘s ark and the ark of the covenant back into the original lexical coherence). That hbt is a Götterschrein portents to Moses being a saved saviour who receives the sacred structures of Tabernacle and ark of the covenant from God as well as being the human counterpart and mediator of the Sinaitic covenant; regarding the flood hero Noah, his hbt is a Götterschrein in that it is a sacred structure atop a mountain, like a ziggurat, where he is offering sacrifice as a priest to God who is soothed, and receives (along with his sons) a covenant from God. For hbt to be a ―coffin‖ is a polemical usage, since, in each narrative, the protagonist(s) enter the contra-coffin and their life is preserved while everyone else outside it dies in death-waters (the rest of humanity, male Hebrew babies); subsequently, the protagonist(s) re-emerge into a new world. Diachronically speaking, this phenomenon was the experience of nP (and P) and contemporaries having recently experienced life preservation by sovereign God in the form of emerging out of exile safely unto new life in a new world. Thus, hbt is a terminus technicus for a life preserving receptacle in the Hebrew Bible. iii Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za ABSTRACT hbt, die skaars woord wat gebruik word om die vaartuie van Noag en Moses aan te dui, maar nêrens anders in die Hebreeuse Bybel gebruik word nie, dui waarskynlik ‗n intertekstuele verhouding aan. Die term hbt het egter nog weinig aandag in vorige navorsing ontvang. Daar blyk ‗n hele aantal vreemdhede te wees aan hierdie skynbaar eenvoudige probleem. Die vaartuie ter sprake is totaal verskillend, beide esteties en kontekstueel-gesproke. Die term is inderdaad ‗n leenwoord wat nie eie aan die Hebreeuse taal is nie. Die ekwivalente terme in die LXX verskil ook tussen die twee verhale: kibwto/j vir Noag se vaartuig en qi=bij vir Moses se mandjie. Wat het die outeur(s)/redaktor(s) in gedagte gehad toe die leksikale skakel d.m.v. hbt tussen die verhale bewerkstellig is? En waarom het die Septuaginta-vertalers hierdie terminologiese skakel weer opgehef? Nadat deeglike sinkroniese en diakroniese eksegese van die Vloedverhaal (Gen 6-9*) en die verhaal oor Moses in die mandjie (Ex 2*) gedoen is, word geargumenteer dat die skenkertaal waarvandaan die Hebreeuse skrywer(s) die woord hbt geleen het Egipties is, en wel die woord ḏbȝ.t wat ―houer, doodskis, Götterschrein‖ kan beteken. Hoewel die lekseem ter sprake van Egiptiese oorsprong is, herinner die Vloedverhaal en Mosesverhaal eerder aan Akkadies-Babiloniese literatuur. Hierdie hibriede verhale blyk gepas en uitdagend te funksioneer in die milieu van die Levant waar die Hebreërs gewoon het. Die Priesterlike skrywer het na alle waarskynlikheid oorspronklik na Noag se boot as ‗n Nwr) verwys— dieselfde term wat ook vir die ark van die verbond gebruik is. Die nie-Priesterlike skrywer het egter later daardie woord vervang met hbt, en het dieselfde term in Ex 2* gebruik om ‗n parallel te bewerkstellig. (Dit blyk dan dat die LXX-vertalers hierdie verandering in die latere redaksie weer wou herstel ten einde Noag se ark en die ark van die verbond in die oorspronklike samehang te bring.) Dat die hbt as ‗n soort Götterschrein aangedui word, word Moses aangebied as ‗n geredde redder wat die heilige strukture van Tabernakel en ark van die verbond van God ontvang, maar tegelykertyd ook as menslike teenparty en bemiddelaar van die Sinaïtiese verbond. Met verwysing na die held van die Vloedverhaal, Noag, word die hbt as ‗n Götterschrein aangedui deurdat dit as heilige struktuur bo-op ‗n berg voorgestel word—soos ‗n ziggurat—waar Noag as priester ‗n offerande aan God bring waardeur God tevrede gestel word, en waar hy (saam met sy seuns) ‗n verbond van God ontvang. Deurdat die hbt ook die assosiasie van doodskis oproep, word ‗n polemiese gesprek gevoer deurdat die protagonis(te) in elke verhaal die kontra-doodskis betree, en hul lewens bewaar word terwyl alles daarbuite in die doodswaters sterf (die res van die mensdom, die Hebreeuse babas). Gevolglik herrys die protagonis(te) in ‗n nuwe wêreld. Diakronies beskou reflekteer hierdie verskynsel die ervaring van die nie-Priesterlike en Priesterlike skrywers en hul tydgenote wat in die onlangse verlede lewensbewaring ervaar het deurdat die soewereine God hulle uit die ballingskap laat herrys het tot lewe in ‗n nuwe wêreld. hbt is dus terminus technicus vir ‗n lewensbewarende houer in die Hebreeuse Bybel. iv Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is my privilege and joy to acknowledge various peoples and institutions that have aided me in the completion of this dissertation and doctoral program. Initially, I would like to recognize the following libraries of which I made use: University of Idaho (Moscow, ID), Washington State University (Pullman, WA), Whitworth University (Spokane, WA), Gonzaga University (Spokane, WA), Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (S. Hamilton, MA), and Stellenbosch University; and thanks to the Interlibrary Loan staff at Lewiston Public Library (Lewiston, ID). Also, thank you to Gordon L. Isaac (Ph.D., Marquette) and Maggie Bolon for securing key resources for me and Ehud M. Garcia (Ph.D., Fuller) for helping me with translation of the Spanish article. Special thanks to my supervisor Louis C. Jonker for excellent direction, critique, and encouragement. I further appreciated the participation of external examiners professors Jurie le Roux (Univeristy of Pretoria) and Konrad Schmid (Univeristy of Zürich) in the oral examination. I thank Church of New Hope (Lewiston, ID) for granting me sabbatical in order to finish out that which was requisite of the doctoral program in Stellenbosch, South Africa. And I cannot express my gratitude enough to my wife, Julie, for all the love and support and inspiration she has given me; throughout this dissertation she bore our three girls, and cared for them solely during my residency/sabbatical in Stellenbosch—I love you. Finally, Soli Deo Gloria. ―The LORD will reign forever and ever!‖ (Ex 15.18) v Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za CONTENTS Abbreviations viii-x Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-15 1. The Situation 1 2. Survey of Scholarship 2 2.1 : Origin and Etymology 2 2.2 in Genesis 3 2.3 in Exodus 4 2.4 Juxtaposed 5 2.5 The Need for Further Scholarship of 6 3. The Problem 8 3.1 Presuppositions and Hypotheses 8 3.2 Methodology and Approach 12 Chapter 2 – Noah’s (Genesis 6-9*) 16-121 0. Textkritik 16 1. Synchrony 26 1.1 Literary and Linguistic Analyses 26 1.2 Narrative Criticism 37 1.3 Summary 66 2. Diachrony 66 2.1 Literarkritik 66 2.2 Formen/Gattungenkritik 74 2.3 Komposition/Redaktionskritik 110 2.4 Summary 120 Chapter 3 – Moses’ (Exodus 2*) 122-190 0. Textkritik 122 1. Synchrony 126 1.1 Literary and Linguistic Analyses 126 1.2 Narrative Criticism 132 1.3 Summary 157 2. Diachrony 157 2.1 Literarkritik 157 2.2 Formen/Gattungenkritik 163 2.3 Komposition/Redaktionskritik 181 2.4 Summary 189 vi Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Chapter 4 – : Its Donor Language and Hebrew Reception 191-220 1. Akkadian 192 2. Egyptian 197 Excursus: Coptic Tradition and Greek Rescension 206 3.